Author
Topic: "Primacy of Honor" (Read 8891 times)

I frequently read from Orthodox authors that they believe the See of Rome to have had a "primacy of honor", but not supremacy or universal jurisdiction. I would like to know what is meant by the phrase "primacy of honor" in everyone's understanding. God bless,

I frequently read from Orthodox authors that they believe the See of Rome to have had a "primacy of honor", but not supremacy or universal jurisdiction. I would like to know what is meant by the phrase "primacy of honor" in everyone's understanding. God bless,

Don

He gets the first cup of tea at any Council... ;-)

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I frequently read from Orthodox authors that they believe the See of Rome to have had a "primacy of honor", but not supremacy or universal jurisdiction. I would like to know what is meant by the phrase "primacy of honor" in everyone's understanding. God bless,

Don

I don't think it's that simple. The Church appears to have often granted certain prerogatives to certain of the highest ranking Bishops beyond simple ranking of honor. This seems to have happened the most with Rome. It was certainly short of recognizing him as inherently infallible or supreme or even practically supreme, but it was more concrete than simply honor.

Metropolitan Hilarion in the article which you linked claims that "primacy of honor" does not accord any jurisdictional power:

"Among the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches the Patriarch of Constantinople is recognized as the ‘first among equals,’ who has borne the title ‘Ecumenical’ since Byzantine times. However, neither this title nor the pre-eminence of honour accorded to him give the Patriarch of Constantinople any jurisdictional rights outside the boundaries of his own patriarchate."

This view contradicts another article I read by Lewis Pastavos on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website which claims that it does indeed carry jurisdictional power, and devotes a lengthy essay to proving the point. He writes:

"The position of honor accorded the Bishop of Constantinople brought with it genuine authority (exousia). This is made evident by several factors including: appeals from other churches; the importance of the Resident Synod (Endemousa Synodos); the authority exercised by several renowned patriarchs such as Saint John Chrysostom, who involved themselves with matters beyond the territorial limits of the Church of Constantinople (such as evangelizing the Goths and Scythians among others, and reforming the independent dioceses of Pontos, Asia, and Thrace).

It goes without saying that neither conceive of the “primacy of honor” as absolute supreme jurisdiction, but Mr. Pastavos makes a strong case that it is certainly more than purely honorary in the sense in which we use the term. It’s not, for example, simply that he acts as the chief celebrant during pan-Orthodox Divine Liturgies. It seems to me that we Orthodox have perhaps reacted too strongly to Papal claims and reinterpreted our own history to downplay the jurisdictional authority which the primatial sees did in fact enjoy. I admit though that I am no expert in these matters, so I’d be interested in hearing arguments for or against this claim on the basis of historical evidence.

I frequently read from Orthodox authors that they believe the See of Rome to have had a "primacy of honor", but not supremacy or universal jurisdiction. I would like to know what is meant by the phrase "primacy of honor" in everyone's understanding. God bless,

/\ /\ /\ My position would submit to the teaching of Saint Justin Popovic

"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church."

It seems to me that the historical circumstances which saw a primacy of honour descend upon the Church of Constantinople after Rome's departure are no longer relevant. In other words, if we wish to maintain this concept of primacy of honour it should now devolve to a more appropriate Local Church. That is not really necessary though, the fundamental operating system of the Church is conciliar and "primacy of honour" is a non-essential. IMHO.

I frequently read from Orthodox authors that they believe the See of Rome to have had a "primacy of honor", but not supremacy or universal jurisdiction. I would like to know what is meant by the phrase "primacy of honor" in everyone's understanding. God bless,

Don

Introduced first. First to sign a document, good seating... Also, he acted like a referee sometimes during a dispute.

But he had no actual power or rulership over the other Jurisdictions. Rome didnt even dare suggest such a thing until the 4th century or so and then ever so gradually.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

1) The Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain has stated its official position regarding the Convention of the Joint Commission for the Dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, which is to take place in Cyprus.

I frequently read from Orthodox authors that they believe the See of Rome to have had a "primacy of honor", but not supremacy or universal jurisdiction. I would like to know what is meant by the phrase "primacy of honor" in everyone's understanding. God bless,

Don

It basically means primacy of nothing.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I frequently read from Orthodox authors that they believe the See of Rome to have had a "primacy of honor", but not supremacy or universal jurisdiction. I would like to know what is meant by the phrase "primacy of honor" in everyone's understanding. God bless,

Don

It basically means primacy of nothing.

jUdging from all the excuses we get from ya'll on how your supreme pontiffs handle (or don't) the pedophile scandal, the liturgical abuses, dissidents, the suppression of your Easterns traditions, I guess so..

Ultramontanists always have this equation in the back of their mind primacy=dictatorship.

For the OP, it's like the primacy of the speaker of the US house, or the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system.

An aspect of that I saw yesterday: watching the Borgias, the cardinals, knowing how Pope Alexander had bought the office, try to find a way to annull his election and get rid of him. So, of course, being good legalists, they consult the canon expert, who says that a pope can be removed from office for notorious and public fornication (supposedly not technically a violation of the vow of chastity, as that only applies to clerics who soil themselves by marryinig the woman, but I digress). Interesting (given the position in the Corban factories for the time frame to examin a marriage for annullment is only at the time of marriage) they don't look at the mistress he was openly living with when he was elected, but an affair he started afterwards. Anyways, I don't thnk that such a canon was on the books (but I can be wrong on that) but it isn't on it now. Fact is, there is no way to remove the sovereign of the Vatican. None. As Pastor Aeternus teaches, he is judged by no one. So, unlike a Speaker or a Prime Minister (or an Orthodox Patriarch) there is no way to remove one once in office when he abuses the office. By definition, the pope cannot be a heretic, according to the Ultramontanists, because he cannot be removed.

« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 12:02:56 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I frequently read from Orthodox authors that they believe the See of Rome to have had a "primacy of honor", but not supremacy or universal jurisdiction. I would like to know what is meant by the phrase "primacy of honor" in everyone's understanding. God bless,

"the state of being first in rank, grade, etc." Collins English Dictionary

It would appear that you have simply developed a contorted understanding of what primacy means simply for the polemical purposes of denying the Orthodox primacy as truly primacy. But as the definitions indicate, it primarily being a matter of being first in rank, it's quite clear that the Orthodox primacy truly qualifies the word primacy.

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

What is really suprising you guys, after Pastor Aeternus, can't publically agree on exactly what it means.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

You mean an institution arrogates to itself powers not granted to it by its constituion. Gotchya.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 03:23:15 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Although there are many pre great schism prayers that talked about "all" the apostles receiving the keys to heaven.

They did. If we can't even say that the keys were given to the Apostles as their collective possession with Peter being the one leader responsible for holding them, but rather that they were the particular possession of Peter, it would appear that Petrine supremacy would have to be true.

Although there are many pre great schism prayers that talked about "all" the apostles receiving the keys to heaven.

They did. If we can't even say that the keys were given to the Apostles as their collective possession with Peter being the one leader responsible for holding them, but rather that they were the particular possession of Peter, it would appear that Petrine supremacy would have to be true.

What were the powers of the Keys as understood in the West in earlier days?